The newly launched Al Jazeera English version has posted up an article on their website that claims the west needs Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran, not the other way around. I think that position rises or falls on one crucial question...does America want to continue being Politically Correct, or do we want to take the gloves off, and do whatever it takes to seize victory from defeat in Iraq, and to once and for all end Iran's march towards having nuclear weapons. If America, our leaders, our military generals shrug off the cloak of restraint that is Political Correctness, and instead fight to win at all costs, settling for nothing less than full and complete surrender, then Iran is nothing if but a nuisance.We here in America are now hearing a call to re implement the draft...now, the facts are simple. We are in a police action similar to Vietnam over in Iraq. Short of doubling, even tripling the number of troops in theatre in Iraq, and going back into a war footing, that war cannot be won. The militias of Iraq have to be defeated, there must be a full surrender, renegade want to be leaders like Sadr either killed or captured. Short of a draft, where does the Pentagon propose finding the troops necessary for such an action? In World War II we had a Marshall plan, and even today we still have troops on the ground in Japan and Germany. We were victorious because we really did use overwhelming force, including the dropping of THE BOMB. We either bring our troops home in Iraq, or we take the gloves off, stop worrying about world opinion, and do whatever it takes to be Victorious...there is no middle ground.
Iran...SANCTIONS WILL NOT WORK, and it is that simple, we have seen it time and again. What will work? Our nukes. OH MY GAWD, that's politically incorrect! Oh, and the devastation visited upon civilized society by various assorted terrorist groups funded by Iran, what is that? If strategic pin point bombing took out the city of Tehran, how long do you think the people would want to fight? They would not fight, they would have poked the tiger once to often and paid the price...you see, having the greatest military in the world only means something if you use it, and you use it well. Once the fear of that force is gone, you have lost your advantage. Bush has pushed us dangerously close to having NOTHING.
So, do we need Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? If we stay the course of Political Correctness, yes we do. However, if we are going to stop worrying about what others think, and instead play to win, he becomes nothing, a bug waiting to be stomped on. So Bush, what's it going to be?
Why the West needs Ahmadinejad
By Rageh Omaar in Tehran
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/257DD78A-63A7-4427-A444-262D0FD9F6C7.htm
A year is a long time in Iranian politics. Twelve months ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, was branded a hardliner by Washington - a religious zealot, and a direct threat to Israel.
Now he is seen as essential to helping George Bush and Tony Blair out of the policy disaster in Iraq.
What is it about him and his government that the American president and British prime minister got so wrong?
Austere leader
Ahmedinejad lectured at a prestigious university in Tehran, teaching civil engineering.
He is still technically a member of the faculty. His office remains untouched, should he wish to return.
You would know that it was Dr Ahmadinejad's office only by its austerity and religious symbols.
Students and colleagues, even those who do not agree with his politics, say they respect him.
Ahmadinejad represents a crucial break in Iranian politics – he is the first post-revolutionary who is not a cleric, he fought in the Iran-Iraq war, and crucially he is seen as not being corrupt.
If the West has underestimated his government's influence in Iraq and the region, they have also exaggerated his vulnerability here in Iran.
So it is hardly surprising that most ordinary Iranians are not hugely interested in Tony Blair's comments on Iraq, especially as he has said Iran would have to give up its nuclear enrichment programme before any talks – something every Iranian leader has said will not happen.
People here feel that when it comes to Iraq and even Lebanon and Afghanistan, Britain and the US need them, not the other way round.
What they want to know is what benefits does Iran get for such assistance?
6 comments:
"If strategic pin point bombing took out the city of Tehran, how long do you think the people would want to fight?"
Shoot'em up. This is the solution! When US will be the only people on earth obviously, the truth will be american.
You may not like the reality, but World War II ended because we dropped THE BOMB on Hiroshima...it was the defining moment. On some level, the threat of atomic attack has lost its might because no one thinks you'll really do it. This leaves America, and other Western civilizations in a situation of fighting a long drawn out and protracted ground war with some air support in a foreign land, or being held hostage to the various terrorist cells around the world. Use of THE BOMB would solve that issue. Then again, I also support taking out a Mosque or two after every terrorist attack....I'd guess it would not take too many Mosques being blown up to see the supposed moderates doing some serious policing of their own.
"You may not like the reality, but World War II ended because we dropped THE BOMB on Hiroshima...it was the defining moment."
Right! The japanese people was terrorized.
Assuming here that you meant to say the Japanese people WERE terrorized....
I am sure that they were...but then, they should have considered the consequences BEFORE they provoked us. Iran is financiing both terrorists and insurgents. In my eyes, that makes them FAIR GAME. We have the means...intercontinental ballistic missiles...to take out the entire city of Tehran without putting one boot on the ground in Iran.
You and Iran might not like the reality, but the shear horror and shock of such instant death would end their chest beating, end their thirst for making war and threats, end their funding of terrorists. So, I'd support our military pushing a few buttons, and teaching a few lessons.
This from someone that thinks the president LIED to take us into Iraq.
This is the response I sent to Al Jazeera after reading that shit article.
This was a terrible article - poorly written and without strong supporting evidence. The author said that Ahmadinejad isn't seen as "a religious zealot, and a direct threat to Israel." Sorry, he is still seen this way, and the American and British governments haven't 'got it wrong' by labeling him as such. When a man continues to make threats to another country, strives to build nuclear bombs, and rallies people who are chanting "Death to America, Israel, etc." he is not a 'respectful' person as stated in the article, he is a madman. This article only solidifies Al Jazeera's place as a low source of information and news- with more biased opinions assuming the identity of truth.
I agree...so far, the Al Jazeera English version is news lite...not much substance.
As for the article...we only need Iran if we are not willing to flex our muscle over there. Why have the NUKES if every one knows we will not use them...taking out Tehran would deal with Iran, and send a VERY STRONG MESSAGE to the midget idiot in North Korea.
Post a Comment